squatting

[Dylboz]

But J, you're not a voluntaryist if you believe that a person forfeits their rights upon entering your property. You are a statist. Or, more accurately, a monarchist. You have claimed superiority in a hierarchy and denied them equal negotiating status, you've deprived them of their right to life by virtue of their position in space. You are claiming to be king sovereign over that land, and ironically, since there is no 3rd party or legitimate state agency to register your claim with in our stateless free society, it is up to you to mark off the boundaries and defend them as you see fit, without the consent, cooperation or agreement (after all, it is YOUR property, right?) of anyone else. So, I walk onto what you decide is your land, and you shoot me, and that's moral. I think that is absurd.

Look, rights do not exist outside of human relationships. They are reciprocal agreements, and require the context of a community, or at the very least two people interacting, to be reified by action (or intentional inaction). All you can do is abide by the Golden Rule and hope others do the same, and when they defect, remember that and act accordingly in the future. The state is a fools errand, trying to minimize risk for the powerful by alternating the carrot with the stick on the powerless, all documented on paperwork filed in triplicate. Life is in no way black and white all the time, or even any time, and your dream world of "black and white" morality is actually what got us into this mess of statism, because if morality is balck and white, just as God says , then no one should have a problem codifying that into law backed by force, right? Right?

Again, I am not freer in the least if I have to fear a thousand tiny potentates or gangs who feel justified in killing or imprisoning me than I am now, in fear of the park ranger or county sheriff. In fact, I am less afraid of the latter than the former. As I have said repeatedly, we should adopt, as advocates of freedom, the default position of easement. We always say, there can be no crime without a victim. Well, if I am simply walking across your property, who have I hurt? If I do not take anything you made or grew, and I do not damage anything, there is no victim. Sure, you have a right to privacy within reasonable bounds of your house, and you can achieve it easily with fences, dogs, signs, or just coming out and making your boundaries clear, but I am talking huge areas here where you're not likely to see me unless you just happen to be out there, but even so, the principle is the same. If my car breaks down and yours is the only light I see for miles, and I come to your house for aid, are you going to shoot me? I have trespassed! If your car goes into a ravine and your passenger is injured, and the fastest way to get help is across my field, should you go around if you don't have prior permission? Is it morally acceptable of me to deny an ambulance access? The classic libertarian flagpole conundrum is avoided if we choose easement, where human life wins over mere property every time. Then of course, break the window and climb down to safety!

In short, if your version of property legitimizes aggressive violence against a human life and necessitates a state, I'm not on board. Trespassing for travel is not aggression. If you believe it is, join the Border Patrol (or explain how a state claim to its border is different than a state issued deed defining a property line). Squatting is not theft if the property is genuinely abandoned, and you shouldn't try and claim what you can't use. If you return to long unattended land or structures and find them in use, negotiate, but recognize the context you're in. These people have mixed their labor into that property, so they too have a claim. We're talking stateless society here, so you can't just wave a paper and call the sheriff. Without initiatory force, there are only people with conflicts, and negotiated solutions (that's what I'm advocating, in case it's not clear). It seems like you are trying to create a justification for violence through your construction of the concept of property in land, so you can unilaterally force your will on others.

As you can probably tell, I have migrated over the years from a strictly Objectivist standpoint to something like a radical anarchist left-libertarian position. I think it is more consistent with the primary value I place on human life and relationships. I understand that it will only work in the context of a voluntary community that abides by the principles of easement, sovereignty and reverence for human life over property (this is the impulse to charity), while preserving the competitive marketplace, and always preferring negotiated settlement to violence. And even then, maybe not.

[Lex]

I haven't read every single post but this seems like a rehash of many previous similar conversation brought about by Georgists/Economic-rent proponents.

I think the way to look at this is not in terms of how much land you can 'use' but how much land you can defend. There will always be people with infinite amounts of money (even without government) who may buy more land than is practical for them to own. What do I mean by practical for them to own? Well, it's simple, if you own something you have to provide a reasonable way to signify that you own it. Kind of like most animals mark their territory. One of the human equivalents of marking territory is to simply use the property/land but the other is to defend it. You have to hire someone to go around kicking off homesteaders or build a giant fence around your property, etc.

I believe that ownership is an active process. If you stop actively owning something than it's reasonable for squatters to take up ownership of your property. If you later get the funds to hire someone to go around kicking off homesteaders then the price to kick them off may higher than if he had done it right away. For example if the squatters build a house and threaten to defend it with their lives, well, you have an interesting situation on your hands.

In summary, you have to use and/or actively defend your land to keep it your own.

This is the same idea as with freedom. If you do not exercise your self ownership and your liberties then eventually someone will trespass and homestead on your freedoms and government is born.

Just as the right to self ownership is a perpetual fight, so is the right to land ownership.

[Dylboz]

I'm pretty much willing to agree with most of the above, but I'd hardly call it moral to come along and attack that homesteader's house without even attempting negotiation. It has been done, though...

I'm really not a Georgist though, I can't stress that enough. I do not advocate "economic rent," because that is a statist proposition, through and through.

[dalebert]

I'm pretty much willing to agree with most of the above, but I'd hardly call it moral to come along and attack that homesteader's house without even attempting negotiation. It has been done, though...

I'm really not a Georgist though, I can't stress that enough. I do not advocate "economic rent," because that is a statist proposition, through and through.

Agreed. Your previous, kind of lengthy, post describes my own position pretty well. The truth is there can be no hard lines without a state and that means there will be a market demand for non-violent dispute resolution. You'll have people who say you mixed your labor sufficiently to own land where you build a house, some will say farming the land is sufficient, others will say fencing it in is sufficient, and still others will say sticking a flag in the ground is sufficient. The reality will probably end up somewhere in the middle after a bunch of disputes are resolved. However, I whole-heartedly reject the notion of defining property by what you can defend. That's just going back to might makes right. That's getting awfully close to reinventing statism.

[Lex]

I'm pretty much willing to agree with most of the above, but I'd hardly call it moral to come along and attack that homesteader's house without even attempting negotiation.

I wasn't trying to suggest that this was the moral thing to do. Merely that by lapsing in your active ownership of your property the situation of having to deal with squatters would become more complicated. The longer you hold off on dealing with the problem the lower your changes of getting your property back.

For example, say your great great grandfather owned some property. But nobody in your family has seen this property in a 100 years. When you finally find it, there is someone else living there. They are probably part of the community now and the property has been more or less seeded to this family that's lived in this house for probably more than a generation. Would it be reasonable for you to get this property back?

I don't think it's a Yes/No question. The point is the amount of effort it would take to get it back (you would have to make up for the 100 years of not actively owning the property). You would have to convince the family to move out and/or convince the town that you are the descendant of your great great grandfather who used to own this land. And of course explain to them why it was abandoned for so long and why you suddenly want to claim it. There will probably be opposition from all sides and you may have to purchase the land back, etc or you may simply not get it back.

People are born and they die, families change, lifestyles change. It is impossible to define absolute ownership of land to an individual. The sheer ambiguities of life do not work in favor of such a strict model of property rights. There has to be some wiggle room. Otherwise you will end up with land owned by someone who died years ago and forgot to pass the ownership down to someone else or you end up with some people owning land they don't even know they own!

Also, if there is no cost of ownership of land, then people will buy more land than they can practically sustain. Having to actively own land puts a practical limit on how much land you can own and thus helps to alleviate at least to some degree the fact that populations around the world increase while the earths surface remains relatively static.

But I do not believe that people should lose their land that they are not using (but are able to zone off or maintain or defend) just to accommodate the human population growth. There is no implied guarantee that there is room on this planet when a child is born, beyond what the parents of the child can provide at the moment. If there is no available land for purchase then the child will have to live with their parents and thus never find a partner and die without procreating. That's kind of my perspective on economic rent.

[Dylboz]

I'm pretty much willing to agree with most of the above, but I'd hardly call it moral to come along and attack that homesteader's house without even attempting negotiation. It has been done, though...

I'm really not a Georgist though, I can't stress that enough. I do not advocate "economic rent," because that is a statist proposition, through and through.

Agreed. Your previous, kind of lengthy, post describes my own position pretty well. The truth is there can be no hard lines without a state and that means there will be a market demand for non-violent dispute resolution. You'll have people who say you mixed your labor sufficiently to own land where you build a house, some will say farming the land is sufficient, others will say fencing it in is sufficient, and still others will say sticking a flag in the ground is sufficient. The reality will probably end up somewhere in the middle after a bunch of disputes are resolved. However, I whole-heartedly reject the notion of defining property by what you can defend. That's just going back to might makes right. That's getting awfully close to reinventing statism.

Ha ha ha! I edited out like 6 paragraphs of commentary on self-ownership and analogies in my final edit. I saved it for crafting into a blog post/article, though.


Hey, I just wanted to say, I think it is VERY important that we create art and culture that promotes these ideas, that is how the memes are spread and ideas passed on, and finally embedded into society such that they seem almost hereditary. Good job on doing your part, Dale! I will someday join you! (My girlfriend and I are working on it, she loves cartoons, is witty and libertarian -since meeting me- so she'll write jokes, since I'm incapable of being brief and witty at the same time, and I'll draw!)

[kola]

we are still cavemen.

we are primitively territorial by instinct, we piss to mark out spots and fight for what we call "our turf"

its always been that way and always will.

But IMO theres plenty of room for everyone.

kola

[J’raxis 270145]

Dylboz:—

I had a long point-by-point reply prepared, but after writing most of it, I realized that there's really only two things we disagree on.



First is the argument over morality as opposed to lower orders of wrongness, which really isn't particularly important. My take on immorality is basically that such-described things are those which one not only believes are wrong, but also to which force is an acceptable response. As I said earlier, the Non-Aggression Principle states that the only legitimate force is that which is defense against initiated force (aggression), and all other forms of force are aggression itself. The logical and thus ironclad conclusion of this is that the only moral use of force is defense against aggression.

I would describe lower orders of wrongness—those acts which do not justify force in response, but to which most reasonably decent people would respond with social ostracism—as unethical perhaps. Below that we have personal preferences, æsthetics, tastes and whatnot. I usually group all these things together when discussing these topics because what's important is where force can be used. Whether or not people choose to ostracize is entirely personal, so there's no set line between unethical and, say, distasteful behavior.

The Golden Rule makes an excellent day-to-day operating principle, but the Non-Aggression Principle establishes an absolute, black-and-white check on what you're absolutely not allowed to do: Commit aggression against another. Each human interaction and relationship may be fuzzy and open to negotiation, but the prohibition on aggression is not.



Second, and more importantly, is this "easement" idea. The way you describe it, an easement is clearly an act of aggression against another person—you seem to be claiming that it's perfectly acceptable to tell another person that, because you believe you have a more important or pressing need to their property, that you can force your way onto it if they're using it in a manner that you believe is less important, or not "using" it at all, again, according to whatever your definition of use is.

This is, simply put, just another artificial system that would ultimately require a State, or something damned similar, in order to enforce it. It's not the natural way for people to behave. It would generate resistance and violence as one individual tries to ease his way onto another's property and the owner, rightfully, views this as a violation of his rights.

You are absolutely correct that everything in a free society needs to be decided by voluntary consent, coöperation, and negotiated agreement. Every person alive already actually understands how to do this, to a point: I heard someone, just recently, describe anarchy as, "Anarchy is how you deal with your friends." [I think this was you, Dale?] Where most people become inconsistent is how they deal with others beyond their own circle of friends: In their head, they come up with some ideal way in which they believe the world ought to be ordered, and then they go on to believe this ideal ought to be imposed through force on those unwilling to go along.

Your easement idea is just another example of this, unfortunately. Look at how you describe it: This is the default position we should adopt, that we need to choose it, that if only we abided by it, &c., &c.. It's artificial, it's an ideal, and it would have to be forced on people in order to get them to "abide by" it. Ask yourself this: Would you try to force this easement concept on a friend of yours who was unwilling to coöperate with a request of yours? If you were having a medical emergency and a friend of yours slammed his door in your face, would you break it down because you "need" access to his property? Or would you just break off your friendship with him and never speak to him again?

Let people alone, let people do their own thing with their property and themselves, and everything just works out. The key to establishing a free society isn't trying to impose yet another artificial ideal on people, but to get them to consistently apply beliefs they already hold.

[Dylboz]

I disagree entirely and vehemently with the second part. Your first point about morality is a separate issue , but less pressing. I'll address it later. But...

You have it exactly backwards.

What you describe as "property" is artificial and requires now, as it always has, a state to enforce. Easement is natural, normal and persists until a state pops up to justify violence in control of your notion of property. It is the anarchy that dominates our personal relationships and interactions. Again, you don't shoot your friends for parking in your driveway. What you call property is exactly a state. What do we libertarians generally define a state as? A person or persons who claim the sole right to initiate violence in control of given geographical area. That's what you claim is the normal, natural state of affairs, a million little monarchies where the "owner" is free to pass death sentences on trespassers. There is NO AGGRESSION inherent in trespass over open land, and it is a dishonest contortion to say there is. No damage is done, no threat is made, one is only trying to get from point A to point B the fastest way. If damage or theft occurs, you have a tort. If privacy is invaded, or the owner's plans or travels are interrupted, you have a tort. If a threat is made, respond in kind. Until then, you do not have an excuse to aggress against a peaceful traveler. There is no universe except your radical propertarianist one where mere trespass on open land can be legitimately met with deadly force. And frankly, no one would do it unless they thought they had some reasonable means of avoiding retribution, like royal prerogative, or a state police force and jail to restrain the relatives and friends of our hapless traveler from seeking justice.

What you describe is not just absurd, but contrary to the bible (as an historical document of culture, not the word of God, I'm an atheist), recorded history, and established custom worldwide. One of the greatest sins in the bible, and the thing that got Sodom and Gomorra destroyed, was being discourteous and unwelcoming to desert travelers. This attitude persists in the Bedouin culture of Saudi Arabia as well as the deserts of North Africa. Ironically, where resources are scarcest, generosity to traveling strangers is the highest virtue, because they understand that life is more important than property, and they could find themselves in similar need, dependent on the kindness of strangers themselves someday. Also, Scandinavia is famous for it's "right to wander," wherein countryside property owners are expected to allow campers and fishermen, and in the past, even hunters, access to their land for recreational purposes, not to mention day hikes or simple travel. In turn, the travelers and sportsmen are expected to leave it as they found it and not overly-exploit the resources or damage any real property, like gardens or structures. This custom remains in effect today. I do not know a single person who would resort to deadly force first in response to a trespass of the kind we're discussing, let alone defend it as their prerogative.

If I had a friend who slammed the door on me in a medical emergency, I would damn well break the fucking door down (assuming I still could), and I don't know another person who wouldn't. If that person knew life and death were hanging in the balance, and they decided to shut the door, they are as bad as a murderer to my mind. At that point, who cares about "ostracism" and "never speaki(ing) to him again," it is GAME OVER. I'm dead, or my wife or child is, unless I act to save them. That's just dumb, and I think you know it. And even though I was not talking about entering a person's house above, the principal is the same. You'd have me die on the doorstep rather than violate your standard of property rights. These are the absurd conclusions to which dogmatic propertarianism leads, which is why most people reject that brand of libertarianism as cruel and inhumane. Unfortunately, thanks to Rand it has ascendency in libertarian culture.

We don't need to go there, all we have to do is privilege life over property when they conflict. When they don't, it of course falls to the established owner to decide, or to conflicting individuals with competing claims to negotiate peaceful and mutually agreeable settlements. Easement would be a nice cultural disposition to resurrect, as it has always been common until states granting exclusive title to land expunged it from the common understanding, giving the landed gentry the right to violate human rights on their "property," justified by the Divine Right of Kings. What you describe is an artifact of feudalism, and not the mark of a free society. It is the prerogative of the nobleman to dispose of (or execute) the serfs on his land at will, they are his property, devoid of rights, after all. You are making the monarchist argument, suggesting that title to land makes you master of all humans on it, and denying them parity in negotiations with you, hell, they're not even persons in your little dictatorship, they are property you can just kill for their "aggression" of occupying some space you claim to own, space on earth that preceded all life, including yours. That's the kind of thing that needs to be forced, and reinforced, and justified after the fact.

No, my easement idea is the default arrangement free and equal people will abide in the absence of force. Easement requires zero force, your idea requires, or at least excuses and justifies, the initiation of force, and it has always been abetted by government backed title. Think about it, you have to be pro-active to do what you describe, you have to be on the lookout, and then go out and accost a traveler on "your land" and threaten him with force if he doesn't obey you. How is that NOT aggression? Imagine, I am walking across a field, harming no one. In my world, I am safe, secure and at ease. In yours, I am nervous, keeping to the shadows and constantly on the lookout for some guy trying to kill me. Which one sounds more like letting people alone and allowing them to do their own thing and everything works out? Which one reminds you of the state, with its borders and cops and preemptive threats of force? More importantly, which one comports with our natural intuitions about right and wrong?

Finally, I remind you that a common objection to propertarianist libertarianism is "what if some guy buys all the property around your village and holds everyone within it hostage, or charges exorbitant tolls to traverse his land?" Well, a society that values free travel doesn't allow claims to property that bar easement, so his demands are rightly regarded as absurd and completely ignored, and when he tries to enforce them, he is met with resistance. In your world, you have to keep saying "oh, it wouldn't happen," or "I'd open a helicopter service and magnanimously not overcharge my neighbors," neglecting to establish how you got your chopper in, etc. Another common scenario proffered is the flagpole  situation, wherein you fall from the top of a high building, and you grab onto a flagpole on your way down, but your only means to safety is breaking a window and climbing in someone's apartment. According to you, if no one is home, or even worse, they are home and they say "no," then you are supposed to hang there until you are otherwise rescued or you lose your grip and simply fall to your death. That notion is absurd, and anyone who denies you access would be a despicable, immoral bastard, and force would be justified against them, because, again, human life is more valuable than property in the form of a window.

[Russell Kanning]

"defending land" ..... that smacks of the government to me

This is a very basic discussion to me. What will you do if someone steps on "your" land? How will you work out your disagreements over land, "aggression" and so forth?
The non or zero aggression principle is interpreted by people differently .... so how do you decide?

[Lex]

"defending land" ..... that smacks of the government to me

I'm don't understand how you arrived at that correlation.

How does defence == government?

When a Lion defends her Lion cubs there is no government involved. Or when a dog barks at another dog entering its territory there is no government involved. When a stranger walks into your house and you don't want them there and you tell them to leave, there is no government involved there either.

[NJLiberty]

Dylboz,

I'm afraid I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. While shooting first and asking questions second would not be how I would address most situations, I most certainly reserve the right to use that level of force to defend my property, whether it be my bedroom, my house, an unoccupied house on my property, or the property itself. If you want to cross my property all you need do is ask. If you have accidentally wandered onto my property you have nothing to fear from me provided you are willing to leave peacefully, but you have no right to be there as far as I am concerned. You are trespassing at that point. As far as I can tell in your easement scenario I have the right to ask a person to leave my property but apparently no recourse if they decide to stay since according to you they have a right to use my property so long as they do no harm to it. I don't understand why you feel anyone else should have any right to my property but me, whether they have good intentions or bad? At that point they are really no better than the government claiming rights to my property.

How long would I have to suffer them to stay on my property in your easement scenario? Do I only have to permit them to just pass through? Do I have to permit them to spend the day wandering around? If they pitch a tent and hang out for a week, or a month, do I have to consent to this as well? The problem I have this is that it denies me any right to my property. At that point I am merely holding it by the privilege of others. Apparently in your easement scenario there should be some common understanding that property be held communally and we should all have access to it to do as we please so long as we don't harm anything. I cannot agree with that notion.

As far as the medical emergency goes, slamming the door in your face would be reprehensible in most cases, though I can think of reasons why someone would legitimately do such a thing, but if you then came busting through my door, well, lets just say your medical situation might be the least of your problems at that point.

I have no problem sharing things, but people need to ask first, not assume they have a right to my property.

George

[Dylboz]

You have recourse, you negotiate, and if it escalates, you act accordingly. The thing is, that's really all you can ever do. Why you think that if you and I agree on something, it has any meaning or import to a third party, I do not know. If you "reserve the right" to kill someone for their being on open land, then I think you are not respecting their right to be alive. By equating property in open land, or even property in land that is developed but not occupied or used, with your person, you are making an excuse for aggressive violence. What of it if some guy camps on a piece of your open land for a week? As I said, if your plans are interrupted or some use you have for the land is interfered with, ask him to leave. If the community supports your prior claim, then I'm sure no one will take issue with you acting to remove him or dragging him before whatever body you use to adjudicate torts. All I am saying is, his right to life supersedes your right to call that open land your property, if by property you mean "the right to attack anyone here but me," and I believe you have an obligation to negotiate before using force. Shooting him first is not a right I think you can reserve. If he escalates, makes threats, is intransigent, etc., then sure, by all means, but 99.9% of the time, it'll never get there. Also, breaking into or damaging orchards, gardens, your occupied domicile, etc. are actual acts of aggression, as opposed to traversing open land, and can be ethically met with appropriate and proportional levels of force.

In the end, you do what you want, I mean, we're talking about a stateless society, but I don't want to live around people like that. It'd be the Hatfields and McCoys in a heartbeat without some community values and mutual respect for each others rights and right-of-way. I want to live sort of the way I do now, but better. With a gardener's co-op to trade vegetables with and community supported agriculture to share the benefits as well as the work of raising crops and animals. I want to walk around in nature in peace and free from fear of human attack. I like farmer's markets and access to fresh, even raw milk products. I mean, how am I going to get there if you decide one day that the road through your property that has been there and in use by the community for years is now a toll road? Why should I pay you? To you, it's property rights, to me it's a violation of the easement principle, one that has a long history in common law.

It works and has worked for centuries. I am seeking ideas to promote that will ensure that when the state disappears, we can get along without a new one, and easement would help reduce violence and promote cooperation and the maximum potential use of open land for recreation, travel and sport. If there arises a dispute, then your rights, such as they are, will be those which are recognized by the other party and your community. If they see your actions as legitimate, then I'm sure they'll continue to do business with you. If not, then expect some repercussions. I mean, we don't have "laws" per se, we will have only what we can negotiate in advance to mutual agreement, or, if we use force, what we can adequately justify after the fact. That's a real free society.

[John Edward Mercier]

That's how State statute developed.

[Dylboz]

And feudal lords claiming absolute authority over their land and all the people on it is how states were born. The statutes were developed as a means of dealing with problems arising from that unequal relationship and the brutal tyranny it created, not the other way around.

____________________________________________________________________


Look, I realize I am very verbose, so I am going to try and crystalize my thinking here.

Life>Property

Property -is not equal to- Person

(this also means I reject self-ownership, especially the version that equates possessions with the body, as a person is not a thing that can be owned even by itself, and besides, it's either a meaningless tautology, or an appeal to religious or mystical dualism)

Also, an occupied home and attached developed land, like plowed fields, gardens and orchards are not the same as open land, and are not subject to easement. I cannot imagine a circumstance where entering these premises without permission wouldn't constitute a tort, the circumstances of which determine the specific response. Even in our earlier example of the flagpole or my "medical emergency," I do believe I'd be obligated to pay restitution for damages (though I personally would forgive the debt, since in each case I would have allowed entry).

I believe that the individual is the basic unit of morality, and I also believe that each human life is inherently, and equally valuable. I respect other's sovereignty, autonomy and their possessions because I wish them to reciprocate that respect. Just as consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the body, rights are reified through human relationships and interaction. They are an emergent property of negotiation. By claiming that your status as a property owner somehow negates another individual's rights, subordinating them to you, you are creating, by the arbitrary standard of title, an unequal hierarchy, wherein you are free to enact violence on them. This is the very evil of the state, and we should oppose it.

Just ask yourself, do you reject the state's claim to the legitimate use of initiatory violence as always and everywhere invalid, or do you merely covet that power for yourself on "your" land? If you adhere to the NAP out of respect for other's right to life (and reciprocally, your own), then I cannot see how you can reject the easement idea or advocate a world made up of petty dictatorships where our lives are entrusted to the caprice of whomever' property we are treading upon (after all, there will be no "commons" or unowned land, right?). To my mind, this is not an improvement, but rather a significant regression, a return to feudalism.

Finally, another real world example of what I am trying to describe vis a vie "easement." Out here in Arizona, we have a lot of land designated "Open Range." Most of it is BLM land, where ranchers have permits to graze their cattle, though they are not exclusive, but much of it is owned by the ranchers themselves. They let their cattle roam freely, and they cross paved and dirt roads that go through them freely (hence the occasional gruesome spectacle of a car-cow collision, which, I believe rightly, obligates the driver to buy the cow). This land and the roads that traverse it are often used by 4 wheelers, campers, hikers, day-trippers and more. The custom is, if you open a gate, close it behind you, if you pack it in, pack it out, and generally tread lightly, leaving it as you found it. If damage is done, like running down a cow, you pay for it. It works, and no one gets shot.